Comments and questions on 3.5 from a Newbie

[Edena_of_Neith]

(nods to you, Silveras)

Ok, I didn't have the mechanics of CR quite right.
But I got the spirit of it right, didn't I? I was right about the concept behind CR, no?

 

[Silveras]

Doesn't work quite that way. While the Arcane Archer is capable of using each of those special powers, he can't use them all at once. Each one requires a standard action to use (probably for the very reason you outlined above).

Also, they are each usable once per day, in many cases.

I'm not sure of the rationale, but if I had to guess, I'd give it something like this:
BAB and save progression do not function as normal under the epic level rules. Every couple of levels, every epic character gains a +1 epic bonus to their attacks and saves. These bonuses are different in that, among other things, they never give extra attacks. So if your BAB at 20 is 20/15/10/5 and you become a 22nd level character, your BAB becomes 21/16/11/6, not 21/26/11/6/1. Classes based around these (like fighters, monks, rogues, etc.) must use these less favorable bonuses. If the spellcasting classes continued to progress as they did before the epic levels, it would be unbalancing. Instead, they get bonus feats more frequently than their counterparts, which enables them to improve themselves every couple of levels like their less-magical friends.

Mostly right, but to clarify, your BAB stops at 20th character level. It NEVER gets any better, and it is used to determine your attacks per round. ALL characters get 1 iterative attack per round per 5 or fraction "points" of BAB. 16-20 gets 4; 11-15 gets 3; 6-10 gets 2; 1-5 gets 1.

As of character level 21, you stop accumulating Base Attack Bonuses and Base Save Bonuses. You start accumulating both Epic Attack Bonus and Epic Save Bonus. Your Epic Save Bonus applies to all saves.

The rationale is laid out in a sidebar on p.207 of the DMG (3.5).

 

[Silveras]

(nods to you, Silveras)

Ok, I didn't have the mechanics of CR quite right.
But I got the spirit of it right, didn't I? I was right about the concept behind CR, no?

The big thing about CR is a tool for the DM to know when the encounter is too tough for the party. CR has little to do with making sure every character has a chance to shine, or is tested to the limit of his/her abilities.

The feeling in 3.5 is that the PCs should be successful most of the time, infrequently at severe risk (15% of the time), and only rarely (5% of the time) so clearly overmatched that it is obvious they should run. Some DMs may feel this is overly generous to the PCs, too deliberately "game designed" as opposed to "story designed".

To truly make sure that each character in the party gets a chance to shine, and that each is tested to his/her limits, the DM needs more than CR. The DM needs to consider what each character does best, and select a challenge that the other characters cannot handle nearly as well.

Example:
To test a party with 1 Fighter, 1 Rogue, 1 Wizard, and 1 Cleric, the DM needs to select "appropriate CR" traps for the Rogue (with detect and disarm DCs that are near the Rogue's total Search and Disable Device modifiers), add "appropriate CR" undead for the Cleric to turn (with numbers and/or HD to make it suitably difficult), "appropriate CR" combatants to challenge the Fighter (something with some useful Feats of its own; the same Undead as used for the Cleric might be used, just with more numbers), and something that the Wizard can't just magic missile away (perhaps a foe with high SR, so the Wizard has to think of a way to use his/her spells indirectly).

The CR number (and the Encounter Level (EL), which is a combined CR for all the things that come in one encounter; a single thing has an EL equal to its CR) gives you an idea of whether the things you have chosen might be too tough for the party, especially if the Rogue fails to find the trap or the Cleric fails to turn the undead.

Perhaps the Rogue has put a lot of effort into maximizing Search and Disable Device. If the only traps that the DM can find with Search and Disable DCs in the right range are at CRs 6 or more above the party's level, the DM needs to choose something lesser, and maybe add something to the design to make them harder to find and/or disable.

In the end, CR and EL are about not ruining the players' fun by accidentally throwing something too tough at them (Mind Flayer against a lone 1st level Fighter) or too easy at them (lone CR 1/2 Orc against a party of 12th level PCs).

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Ok, fair enough.
CR is a tool to help the DM. Heaven knows, the DM has enough to deal with (he does, indeed!) and this makes it easier.
It helps prevent the DM from accidentally throwing too monumental a challenge at the players, or too weak an encounter.
That makes sense.

Remember that, in my examples, I'm not trying to be a DM. (If I ever DM 3rd Edition, it will be after doing a lot of playing of 3rd Edition as a player.)
So, my examples do not take balance (a fair chance for every player to have an equal share in the fun) in mind. They are hypothetical only. I don't want to concentrate on creating hypothetical balanced encounters for my questions, because I'm rather busy wading through the new rules and mindsets.

I've read most of the DMG. I have a LOT of comments and questions. I will begin with them starting now.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

You would not want one player doing a point buy of 25, and let a second player roll 4d6, obviously.

That's not true. I do that all the time. In my latest campaigns, I'm giving folks a choice: 4d6 drop lowest, or 25 point buy. The two options are balanced enough that different folks choose differently. Those who believe the dice do well for them choose 4d6 (for some the bets pay off, for others the bet doesn't), and others choose 25 point buy. 4d6 does generate characters equivalent to 28 point buy, but the extra control afforded by the point buy method makes it possible to min-max your attributes in a way that the 4d6 method doesn't.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Ability scores, page 169 of the DMG and onward.

The Point Buy System: I think this is great for tournament characters and characters in multi-game and multi-party scenarios (because it equalizes all the characters), but I prefer other methods for home games.
The Elite Array: As above.
The Floating Reroll: It's a good system. It is more generous than the simple 4d6 system. If this method is taken, then PCs are better than ordinary people.
Organic Character: LOL. Take it, and like it. Or live with it!
Customized Average Characters: If you assume (as I once did in a hypothetical scenario) tha a 13 represents the top 1% of the population, and a 7 represents the bottom 1% of the population, then this system becomes more pronounced.

Random Average Characters: When I first started D&D, this is the method I had to use. And no rerolling characters. It sometimes stank. But I rolled Edena the Cleric up this way, and got: Str 13, Con 10, Dex 6, Int 14, Wis 17, Cha 16. Not bad, eh?

High powered characters: Just that. But it seems to me that in 3rd Edition, the effects of this system will be more profound than in 2nd Edition. Of course, if you allow your players to use this system, they probably will be very happy with you. (chuckles)
Many, many games I've been in used this system.

RPGA: The RPGA has to use the Point Buy system, in order to maintain character equality and fairness. Whether it's 25 or 32 points, it has to be used. Simple as that.

Subraces: You wouldn't believe how many dwarven subraces there are, on Krynn. I mean, we all know of the various elven subraces - so many, you have elven subraces coming out of your ears. High, grey, wood, wild, gold, silver, green, valley, etc.
But did you know that there are dwarven Hylar, Daewar, Theiwar, Duergar, Klar, Neidar, Aghar, Zhakar, and Smith? And, of course, there are the Grey Dwarves, which are evil deep dwarves. And halflings come in varieties too: tallfellow, stout, deep, and cannabalistic (Athas.) And we have rock gnomes. That's a new one on me. They look like fey, I think.

Half-humans? LOL. Ok, I'd consider them variant half-elves. If Arilyn Moonflower had been allowed to live on Evermeet, she would have been half-human and not half-elf (and she would not hate Amlaruil's guts ... and I would daresay she is justified in hating Amlaruil's guts ...)

New Races:

Play a drow, you're 2nd level. Become a 1st level fighter, and you're 3rd level. And you must gain 4,000 experience points to make 2nd level as a fighter. That's what you get, when you take races with all those neat, special abilities at the start. Seems fair to me.
Play a vampire? LOL. Start at 8th level, first class makes you 9th. Nevermind that every cleric in the kingdom wants a stake put through you.
Now, what would be humorous, is if you had a party with both a paladin and a vampire (a good aligned one) in it.

A mind flayer as a PC?
Who will be on first watch?
Mind Flayer: I'll take first watch!
Everyone else: NO.
(If it's Anabstercorian who is the mind flayer, you're in worse trouble yet ... )

Ability Score Equivalencies:

So charisma is NOT the equal of the other stats. AHA! Told you so. And this gets reflected in where stats are placed.
I like characters with high charisma, even if it means lowering another stat.

Intelligence is equal only to Wisdom OR Charisma? LOLOL. Give me Intelligence. It adds to your base skill points, and in any case if you are a good roleplayer, it makes a tremendous difference. (That's right: if your character has a 6 intelligence, you shouldn't be roleplaying your character as a genius IMHO ... then again, stupid characters can be a lot of fun if played right ...)

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Each to their own, Thorin. I believe you. It's just that, in my experience, 4d6 drop the lowest created characters stronger than 25 Point Buy about 95% of the time. But that's just my experience.

Page 173 of the DMG: A frail race of kindly, beautiful creatures with a +2 bonus to charisma and a -2 penalty to Strength. I can summarize that race in two words: HIGH ELVES.

 

[Silveras]

Remember that, in my examples, I'm not trying to be a DM. (If I ever DM 3rd Edition, it will be after doing a lot of playing of 3rd Edition as a player.)
So, my examples do not take balance (a fair chance for every player to have an equal share in the fun) in mind. They are hypothetical only. I don't want to concentrate on creating hypothetical balanced encounters for my questions, because I'm rather busy wading through the new rules and mindsets.

Understood. I am a bit of a martinet on terminology, in large part because I agree with Orwell. He wrote that writing and thinking reinforce and reflect each other. Getting the terminology right helps get the concepts right, and helps with understanding the things that build on it.

3rd Edition is MUCH better than previous editions about using specialized terminology consistently (not perfect, of course, but much better). When a rule (like a feat or Prestige Class requireent) refers to Base Attack Bonus, they really mean Base Attack Bonus only, not total attack bonus. Likewise, when they refer to skill ranks, they mean ranks, not the total modifier. It is my observation that many accusations that some things are too easy to achieve, or overpowered, stem from people missing this point.

So I am a stickler for terminology.

 

[Silveras]

Re: 4d6 vs Point-buy

Roll 4d6 and keep the best is the standard method for D&D (see the Players' Handbook).

Point Buy is presented as one of several VARIANT methods in the DMG.

Use the one you like for your games.

 

[William Ronald]

Roll 4d6 and keep the best is the standard method for D&D (see the Players' Handbook).

Point Buy is presented as one of several VARIANT methods in the DMG.

Use the one you like for your games.

I have used both point buy and some of the dice rolling methods discussed in the DMG. I have had fun with characters created by both sets of rules.

The key thing in a game is to have fun. I believe that 3.5 promostes this by giving the character choices.

As for the issue of bonus types, there are charts to help DMs and players. Mind you, I think the different bonus types are a lot less confusing than some of the things I saw in previous editions.